Introduction
The Europe Fund Family Digest 2025 report by Morningstar confirms a trend that inbestMe has been highlighting for years: passive management continues to gain ground in Europe and consolidates its role as the most efficient and transparent model for long-term investors.
In this context, the asset management arms of the three major Spanish banks —Santander AM, CaixaBank AM, and BBVA AM— appear in the European ranking, but at the lower end in terms of efficiency, risk-adjusted returns, and costs, according to their own profiles in the report.
The table we present below (prepared by inbestMe using Morningstar data) clearly summarizes the current competitive landscape in Europe.
1. A transforming European market
Morningstar describes a continent moving structurally toward indexing:
- Among the 100 largest asset managers in Europe, approximately €11 trillion (millions of millions) are managed, of which €7 trillion are in active funds and €4 trillion in passive funds (≈ 64 % active / 36 % passive).
- The three largest groups —BlackRock/iShares, Amundi, and J.P. Morgan AM— already manage more than a quarter of the Top 100’s assets.
- The 20 largest managers account for about 60 % of the total European market, still far from the 85 % in the U.S., but the concentration process is clear.
Morningstar highlights that recent European investor behavior reflects a structural market transformation. Among the most relevant trends, the report notes:
- passive funds continue to gain market share steadily,
- the growing preference for passive management is driving downward competitive pressure on costs,
- and fees continue to be a factor with a direct impact on the likelihood of a fund outperforming its category over the long term.
Among the ten largest asset managers in Europe, common patterns stand out:
- High presence of passive funds and ETFs.
In some of the largest managers such as BlackRock (79 % passive), Vanguard (98 %), UBS (64 %), DWS/Xtrackers (56 %), and Amundi/Lyxor (54 %) - Morningstar ratings above average.
Most groups have a Parent Rating above average. - Better ability to beat the median over 10 years.
BlackRock (51 %), Vanguard (73 %), J.P. Morgan AM (45 %), Fidelity (40 %).
In short, scale, a certain tilt toward passive (in some entities), and efficiency in others place the top 10 above the rest.
2. The large Spanish banks: strong distribution, weak results
Among the 100 largest European asset managers, three come from the Spanish banking system.
Their presence reflects the weight that bank distribution still holds in Spain, but also reveals a lack of competitiveness in costs and results compared to European leaders.
The Spanish banks’ managers show low ability to beat the median: Santander AM: 11 %, CaixaBank AM: 22 %, and BBVA AM: 3 % (average 14 %), well below the 38 % of the top 10. Although this 38 % still shows the difficulty managers have in consistently outperforming indexes, it is a huge gap compared to 14 %, reflecting a structural problem of large Spanish bank managers: almost exclusively active funds (96 %), higher fees, and therefore lower long-term efficiency.
The average rating of Spanish bank managers is below three stars, reinforcing the same idea: large Spanish bank managers tend to offer below-average risk-adjusted returns.
Undoubtedly, it does not help that their fees are comparatively high: Santander AM: 42, CaixaBank AM: 44, BBVA AM: 93 (the latter worse than almost the entire Top-100 European list). By contrast, European leaders rank much better: Vanguard: 13, DWS/Xtrackers: 28, UBS and J.P. Morgan: 32.
The three main Spanish banks’ managers remain anchored in active management, with percentages between 93 % and 98 % of the total and, as we have seen, without optimal results.
Looking at the full table, BlackRock/iShares with over €2 trillion and 60 % passive funds clearly dominates the ranking. Amundi follows with 30 % passive funds. In position 7, Vanguard appears with 95 % indexed.
Still, in the top 10 there are other managers where the share of active funds is very high, ranging from 75 % to 90 %, such as J.P. Morgan, DWS Group, UBS, but with much higher Parent Ratings.
3. Costs and structure: the root of the difference
We have seen how Morningstar highlights cost as the most determinant factor of net returns.
Morningstar notes that in Europe, equity index funds had average fees of approximately 0.19 %, compared to around 1.17 % for similar active funds. This nearly 1 % differential is decisive: fees directly affect “the likelihood” that a strategy will beat its index.
Most Spanish bank managers have not yet passed this efficiency on to their clients. They continue to maintain their dominance:
- with a model based on commercial capillarity, not cost competitiveness or performance,
- with an offering based on traditional active management,
- with a high-fee ranking that erodes returns.
4. Sustainability and emerging trends
The report also analyzes adaptation to ESMA ESG regulations.
Morningstar observes that many funds have changed their name to include sustainable references, without significant changes in investment strategy.
Investors, increasingly informed, are demanding real transparency, not just “green rebranding.”
Another relevant phenomenon is the expansion of investment funds in private assets (ELTIFs) aimed at small savers (p. 25).
However, their impact remains marginal compared to the structural wave of indexing.
5. Conclusiones: el modelo eficiente prevalece
The European landscape confirms that passive management has moved from an alternative to becoming the standard of efficiency.
Morningstar 2025 data are conclusive:
- Passive funds offer greater consistency in results.
- Fees are the most predictive variable of future returns.
- Bank managers with costly structures and active portfolios continue to lag.
After the results observed in this report, it is clear that the large Spanish banks’ managers are not the best option for investing.
inbestMe’s vision
At inbestMe we believe investing well is not a matter of luck but strategy.
Indexing allows capturing global market growth with minimal costs, maximum diversification, and full transparency.
Our commitment remains to offer portfolios that combine the best of financial theory and technology so that each investor can obtain the returns the market offers without overpaying for promises that rarely materialize.
